I have to say that I am a little confused about the reading
choices for this week. I would expect to find these two pieces of writing in a
class about women and gender studies (a minor I will be officially pursuing
next semester). I feel that Jamieson was talking about 19th and 20th
century women; I feel that her analysis falls short for the 21st
century reinvention of the “new woman.” I have met many women that not only
engaged in open debate but they did so with much more competition than men. Her
description reminded me of the quiet housewife who only whispered her stance as
to not be bothersome. I did not understand much of this with the overarching
theme of our class; however, I did enjoy the line that housewives were invariably
the “storytellers” of the household. This skill effectively locked in their indispensable
use in television.
The womanly role in television is a fascinating subject that
has helped continue the stereotype. However, this role of the storyteller has
evolved into just that: the woman’s story being told. Paradoxically, this has
helped to reverse the stereotypes in certain ways and was likely an integral
step in boosting women towards equality. In a strange way, the role of women in
television has split into multiple uses. On the one hand, women are still
exploited through television (via ads or shows/movies that use stereotypical
roles). The scantily clad woman slowly reaches into a cooler full of beer; her voluptuous
breasts are nearly popping out of her bikini as she firmly grasps the shaft/neck
of a bottle of beer. She pulls it out of the ice bent over at an exact 90
degree angle as sweat glistens off of her perfectly smooth skin. I believe you
are getting the picture; the Sexualization of the female body draws the
attention of a male audience. Wysocki talks about the sexualzation of women in
ads, but only a printed one out of a magazine. In this context, we lose the
action that the woman enacts in a picture; however, we are allowed to “fill in”
the situation (pursuant to McCloud’s ideas about comic book frames involving
faces and situations being filled in by the individual). So it seems that
watching the action unfold is purely physical stimulation; inversely, seeing an
individual picture staged in the middle of a scene requests that the observer
fills in the rest of the scenario using themselves.
Women have also used television to positively influence
their outlook and reinforced their capabilities within our culture. Oprah is a
great representation of the positive female movement on television. Not only is
she extremely successful and rich, she has placed herself in an infallible position
for women to emulate (power, success, and strength). This link will show a
little parody about Oprah that admits her strength while exposing a male
invented weakness. Warning! There is nudity and swearing, so enjoy!
I agree that the status of women in society has changed exponentially in recent years. One hundred years ago, no woman had even served in Congress. Now, women regularly serve in government, attend college, and work for prestigious companies. Women can be doctors, lawyers, or other respected and valued members of the social community.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of these changes, however, Jamieson brings up some very good points. Women are still not viewed in the same way as men. The media often portrays women as helpless sex objects to be claimed by males. I think there is still a propensity to see women as very different from men in spite of recent changes. For example, I often hear women described as emotional and incapable of making difficult decisions. They are also described as attractive and kind. Whether or not the comments are positive or negative, most seem to still feel that there is a difference between men and women.
The disadvantages to perceived differences between genders may have results such as women being viewed as unfit for tasks for reasons like perceived emotional insecurity. At the same time, there are distinct advantages that accompany the stereotype of being a female. Traits like compassion, warmth, and emotional behavior are highly valued in some circles. I am intrigued by how the use of genders may work as an effective rhetorical device. For example, it makes more sense to insert women than men into compassionate roles in novels due to societal expectations. People expect to see male soldiers in movies more than they expect to see female ones. These expectations can then be frustrated by the creator by reversing gender roles. For example, inserting women as soldiers into a war movie may make people reconsider the glamour of war due to social expectations of women. These are only some examples of the power of gender in rhetorical situations.
I think that the idea of a woman's independence is the big change here. It has become almost empowering for a woman to show off her body. It's not objectification if they choose to take off their clothes. Or so they say. I don't believe it to be empowering, I believe it to be submissive. Some see it as a way to take control and make a man fall down at his knees, but in reality, it's making the man see the woman as an object. It is saying that it's okay to look at a woman no further than her looks. I see it all them time. I mention cutting my hair, and guys around me say no because "all girls look better with long hair." On the MSU Confessions page on Facebook (which I embarrassingly admit I am horribly addicted to), men make shout outs to "all those girls who rock the yoga pants," admiring them for their bodies alone, not their personalities.
ReplyDeleteI am aware that I am taking an extreme stance here. I think there is a place to appreciate beauty (I am most certainly guilty of drooling over good-looking gentlemen), but I think that we are headed to a place that is not ideal in terms of objectivity. Once you begin to see humans, male or female, as objects, then you begin to lose their humanity.